Another Moses/ David like super prophet of flesh and blood which was the way the original Jewish Christians saw Jesus. The Son of G-d stuff was a later Greco-Roman adaptation to fit in with preexiting Hercules/Dionysis tales.
That idea would appear to be inconsistent with John 1, which dates at latest to the early second century. Specifically, the following passage:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."
The Gospel of John is canonical, and John himself was quite Jewish. How would you reconcile the notion of early Jewish Christians thinking of Jesus as a flesh-and-blood super-prophet only with John's clear indication of "Word become flesh"?